My remote control is with someone else but what about Nadda: Congress chief Kharge's counter to Modi
Belagavi, Mar 20: Hitting back at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "remote control" jibe at him and the Congress, AICC President Mallikarjun Kharge on Monday asked as to where was BJP chief J P Nadda's remote control.
Accusing the Modi-led BJP government of "troubling" party leader Rahul Gandhi for "speaking the truth", the Congress President said he doesn't fear such things and was ready for everything.
"Modi came to Belagavi and said - Kharge has become President (Congress), but remote control is with someone else. Okay, my remote control is with someone else, but where is Nadda's (BJP national President J P Nadda) remote control?" Kharge asked.
Addressing the 'Yuva Kranti Samavesha', a youth convention, organised by the party's state unit here, he said: "Nadda speaks under control of whose remote? There are lots of weak spots about you (BJP), for us (Congress) to speak about. You lack courage..."
Claiming that Kharge, who hails from the state, was insulted and disrespected by the Congress in favour of a "family", despite his seniority and age, PM Modi while addressing a public meet here on February 27 had said, "This shows Kharge is Congress President just for the sake of it, and looking at the way he is treated, everyone can see and understand, as to whose hands the remote control is in."
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, General Secretaries K C Venugopal and Randeep Singh Surjewala, state unit chief D K Shivakumar, Legislature Party leader and Leader of Opposition Siddaramaiah among several leaders were part of the mega rally organised at CPED ground here.
Noting that Rahul Gandhi questioned the government in the Lok Sabha on the Adani-Hindenburg issue, the Congress chief alleged that (parts of) his speech was removed from records in Parliament. "Similarly, mine (Kharge's) was removed from records in Rajya Sabha."
"This is democracy... Is it wrong to say that democracy was not functioning properly in this country? To say there is still casteism in this country? You (BJP government) don't allow us to speak the truth, while you keep lying," he asserted.
"Your (BJP government's) ED, CBI or CVC cannot overpower us, we don't fear them. Rahul Gandhi has never feared and will never fear. He speaks the truth, and such a person is being troubled. Let them do it, will they jail him? We are ready for everything," he added.
Pointing out that during the course of the nationwide Bharat Jodo Yatra from Kanyakumari to Kashmir, Gandhi met farmers, youth, women, and every strata of the society, Kharge said: "Forty-six days after the speech made by Rahul Gandhi in Jammu and Kashmir about the problems shared by the people, Delhi Police came to his door seeking for proof regarding his statement on alleged rape or sexual harassment on a women, quoting her."
Despite the Karnataka contractors' association giving proof for their 40 per cent commission charge in the state, no action is being taken, Kharge claimed. "Modi and Shah (Amit Shah) should take action here and make an inquiry as the proof is already given here, then come to Rahul Gandhi."
This was Kharge's first visit to Belagavi after taking over as the Congress President.
He pointed out that Belagavi was a "sacred land" for Congress, as Mahatma Gandhi was elected as the party's President in the district in 1924, and Jawaharlal Nehru was appointed as the General Secretary.
Kharge, seeking the blessings of the people of the state for the upcoming assembly polls, asked the party leaders and workers to fight the polls with unity.
He also accused the BJP government in Karnataka of rampant corruption, and praised the KPCC's poll 'guarantees' including the unemployment allowance for the youth, which was announced today as the fourth 'guarantee', in the event of the party coming to power.
The party has already announced three poll 'guarantees' 200 units of free power to all households (Gruha Jyoti), Rs 2,000 monthly assistance to the woman head of every family (Gruha Lakshmi), and 10 kg of rice free to every member of a BPL household (Anna Bhagya).
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
